https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27481 The court held that the ratio of CIT v. Anwar Ali is no longer applicable to the amended s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, post-amendment. The burden of proof now lies with the assessee in cases where the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income due to the insertion of the Explanation by the Finance Act of 1964. The court found the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 12,000 imposed by the IAC unwarranted as the burden of proof remained undischarged by the assessee. The judgment favored the Revenue, emphasizing the need for clear findings on the burden of proof in penalty proceedings. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27481 The court held that the ratio of CIT v. Anwar Ali is no longer applicable to the amended s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, post-amendment. The burden of proof now lies with the assessee in cases where the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income due to the insertion of the Explanation by the Finance Act of 1964. The court found the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 12,000 imposed by the IAC unwarranted as the burden of proof remained undischarged by the assessee. The judgment favored the Revenue, emphasizing the need for clear findings on the burden of proof in penalty proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27481